Philip was always HRH The Duke of Edinburgh before he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. After the accession he enjoyed place and precedence next to HM so being made a Prince of the UK made no real difference in his status and how he was treated. Even without the official title the public frequently referred to him as Prince Philip anyway.
Alberts role was I think more difficult. He was HRH Prince Albert after his marriage but it was a number of years before Victoria got around to making him The Prince Consort but never a Prince of GB & I. He was never given a peerage.

Consort question: While Elizabeth was Queen, there were years before Philip was made a prince of the United Kingdom where he was HRH the Duke of Edinburogh. How was he referred to as a consort during that time? Prince Albert was Prince Corsort as well, but he was a prince in his one right. Prince Philip had delinquished his prince title before marriage to Elizabeth. I'm just curious...

I think when you marry a princess, you technically become a prince, so he became a prince when he wed. But as the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Cornwall have shown - sometimes another moniker is their preference.

Some of the websites I have visited have explained that to be named a Duke one ups being called a Prince, because in the first case you are "using" your spouse's titles and in the second case you carry your own title and the duties that your "Duchy" depends upon. The same goes for "Princess" and "Duchess."

I guess, I would be unbelievably proud to be named the Duchess of Edinburgh. It is a great city with great seats of learning and the arts. It was a center of "Scots Renaissance" while Robbie Burns lived! It is a lively city of sport and commerce. The Duke has made a life work of improving the city and its various constituencies. He loves the place and they love him for it. I say it is a lovely match!

Each country is different but in Britain the husband doesn't take the styles and titles of his wife so when Philip married Elizabeth he didn't become a Prince, anymore than Mark Philips, Tim Lawrence, The Earl of Harewood, Lord Snowdon or Angus Ogilvy became Princes when they married their princesses.

Philip gave up being a Prince of Greece and Denmark and it was then incorrect to call him a Prince until 1957 - although many people did.

To be a Prince in the UK one has to be born a Prince or created a Prince not marry a Princess - whereas to become a Princess one has only to marry a Prince, as well as be born a Princess or be created a Princess.

With Philip there is also the story of his name being written in the game book at either Balmoral or Sandringham as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and George VI crossing out the word 'Prince' as Philip wasn't a Prince after 1947 until 1957.

I mistakenly thought Philip was the Prince Consort. I was looking at it in relation to Camilla being Princess Consort. I thought maybe they were looking at that as a precident.

When that announcement was made at Charles and Camelia's wedding about Princess Consort, my thought was that there would only be Queen regents from now on. I think it is a good idea, since it is possible that William's daughter could be a queen regent. It would set "queen" apart and make it only by birth.

There is a difference between a prince consort (husband of a Queen Regnant) and The Prince Consort - an official and independent title that has only been created once in British history (for Prince Albert). Prince Philip is a prince consort but he is not The Prince Consort.

In regards to the title of wives of future Monarchs, if Commonwealth Realms pass Acts of Parliament is passed whereby all spouses of future Sovereigns are to be known as The Prince/Princess Consort, I will be fine with that. After all, the Dutch did something pretty similar (although Maxima will still be a Queen). But to deprive only one woman - Camilla - of a title and style that should rightfully be hers as soon as Charles ascends to the Throne is not only wrong, it would create a dangerous precedent and would turn Monarchy into some sort of a popularity contest.

I think when you marry a princess, you technically become a prince, so he became a prince when he wed.

I don't see how that can be right. Neither of Princess Anne's husbands became a prince upon marrying her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle

...my thought was that there would only be Queen regents from now on. I think it is a good idea, since it is possible that William's daughter could be a queen regent. It would set "queen" apart and make it only by birth.

There is a regent only if the monarch is a minor. For example, if a king died and his oldest child was say 10 years old, a regent could be appointed to act in the child monarch's name, and the regent could be the widowed queen, the child's mother. That's the only way you could have a queen regent.

Or do you mean a queen regnant, like the present Queen, as opposed to a Queen Consort?

Harry could voluntarily choose not to use his royal styles, just as his cousins James and Louise Wessex are not using theirs. But legally, he would remain HRH Prince Henry of Wales because the 1917 Letters Patent states he is automatically entitled to it at birth, just as Louise and James are.

The Queen would technically have to issue a Royal Warrant, but if she chose not to, he would be "Lord Henry Mountbatten-Windsor" as the son of a Duke.

I have question. Can Harry if he wanted to verbally renounce his titles as Prince Philip did and would it be legal?
Can Harry just wake up tomorrow and quit being a prince or is there more to it than this?

If Prince Harry made a verbal declaration through St James Palace, Clarence House and/or Buckingham Palace officially declining the honour of being a British Prince, along with the style of Royal Highness, then I am pretty certain there wouldn't be major obstacles. it has, after all worked for Viscount Severn and Lady Louise; legally born a British Prince and Princess, their status was "changed" to that of children of a Peer by a mere proclamation.

In order for Harry to officially cease to become a British Prince, the Sovereign would need to issue Letters Patent or Royal Proclamation to that effect.

I think it would be a much, much bigger deal if he chose to do it, and I don't think he ever would. His father is the future king and then his brother. Harry is much closer to the throne than James and Louise and he's been raised to be a major member of the Royal Family.

I think it would be a much, much bigger deal if he chose to do it, and I don't think he ever would. His father is the future king and then his brother. Harry is much closer to the throne than James and Louise and he's been raised to be a major member of the Royal Family.

Obviously, if it were to happen, it would have been a major issue. Harry is considered to be one of the core members of the Royal Family, current and future.
However, once the decision were made and all it took was an announcement, the manner in which the renouncement was made would hardly matter.

I think it would be a much, much bigger deal if he chose to do it, and I don't think he ever would. His father is the future king and then his brother. Harry is much closer to the throne than James and Louise and he's been raised to be a major member of the Royal Family.

It would be a big deal if Harry did it now, but the reality is once William and Catherine have children, he will become far less important in terms of succession.

In passing I'll note that quoting one's own posts repeatedly in an effort to gain the desired response is not only aggravating but poor form (I'm in the process of reducing the amount of repetitive material that appears in the current discussion).

I'll also take this opportunity to point out that constructive discussion is enhanced by a civil tone. Making repeated (and repetitive) demands of members on whatever side of a debate and/or appearing to be contemptuously dismissive of another member's arguments is not the way to achieve this.

To give her the title Princess Consort the marriage will have to be declared morganatic and that will take parliament to pass legislation to strip her of the title The Queen and that will then be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemisia

I don't see how giving Camilla the title of The Princess Consort in her own right will make the marriage morganatic.

There is no such thing like a morganatic marriage in the UK. It all depends on the Sovereign's consent to the marriage of a member of his or her family. The marriages without such Royal permission are invalid by law (I don't really know on what base Edward VIII wanted to make his marriage to Wallis Simpson legally morganatic).

Thus, Camilla, as legal spouse of Charles, will be his queen consort whatever anyone thinks about it.
IMO the Duchess of Cornwall will be (and should be) the Queen by style, not only formally a queen consort with a lesser title like the Princess Consort.

There is no such thing like a morganatic marriage in the UK. It all depends on the Sovereign's consent to the marriage of a member of his or her family. The marriages without such Royal permission are invalid by law. IMO the Duchess of Cornwall will be (and should be) the Queen by style, not only formally a queen consort with a lesser title like the Princess Consort.

I agree completely!! She has paid her dues and should be Queen. If Diana's children can get along with her a nation should.

There is no such thing like a morganatic marriage in the UK. It all depends on the Sovereign's consent to the marriage of a member of his or her family. The marriages without such Royal permission are invalid by law (I don't really know on what base Edward VIII wanted to make his marriage to Wallis Simpson legally morganatic).

Thus, Camilla, as legal spouse of Charles, will be his queen consort whatever anyone thinks about it.
IMO the Duchess of Cornwall will be (and should be) the Queen by style, not only formally a queen consort with a lesser title like the Princess Consort.

I am aware of it and that was, in fact, my point. Once Charles and Camilla got the Sovereign's consent, that was all they needed.

However, even if in future the concept of morganatic marriage is introduced into the British Royal Family, Camilla still couldn't and wouldn't be considered one; she has already been accepted as an equal (non-morganatic) wife by becoming The Princess of Wales.

Obviously, Camilla will be Queen Consort; unless Acts of Parliament are passed in all 16 Commonwealth Realms, there is no other way. What we were discussing is how it would be possible for Camilla to be styled as The Princess Consort (while legally remaining a Queen).

Can someone answer this? I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but I haven't found it if it has. Why would Camilla want to be Princess Consort instead of Queen? I mean during more than 1000 years of British history, the wife of the king is the queen. And although I (sort of) understand she didn't want to upset people by "replacing" Diana as Princess of Wales, Diana was never Queen. I just don't understand why anyone thinks the Princess Consort title, or style, is a good idea.

Can someone answer this? I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but I haven't found it if it has. Why would Camilla want to be Princess Consort instead of Queen? I mean during more than 1000 years of British history, the wife of the king is the queen. And although I (sort of) understand she didn't want to upset people by "replacing" Diana as Princess of Wales, Diana was never Queen. I just don't understand why anyone thinks the Princess Consort title, or style, is a good idea.

At the time of the marriage, the Palace was unsure whether Camilla would be accepted. Back then, little was known about Camilla Parker Bowles bar from the highly unflattering portrayals of the "third woman" coming mainly from pro-Diana biographies. To placate the die-hard Diana fans and to minimise any damage to the Crown, a decision was made to announce that, after Charles ascends to the Throne, Camilla will be known as The Princess Consort, rather then Her Majesty The Queen.

Whether they will actually proceed with the plan or not remains to be seen. Either way, it is almost certain that Camilla will in fact be The Queen Consort, but will just opt to be known (at least initially) as The Princess Consort. The wife of a British Monarch is automatically a Queen and to legally deny Camilla that right Acts of Parliament would need to be passed in all sixteen Commonwealth Realms - and personally I don't see that ever happening. There is no question of Camilla being Charles' morganatic wife because a) she has already been accepted as his "equal" wife and The Princess of Wales (even if she doesn't use the title) and b) there is no such thing as morganatic marriage in Britain.

Now, whether the idea was Camilla's or not, or whether she actually likes/approves the plan has never been announced. It has been reported over the years that the Duchess doesn't particularly care about her future title and will be perfectly fine if she is known as The Princess Consort.

It is all due to the fact that she is divorced. Prince Charles was divorced, but with Princess Diana's death, he became a widower, then remarried. If the Duchess's ex husband does not survive the reigning monarch, that may change things. I think the royal family is trying not to ruffle the feathers of the staunch monarchists who they need to survive, and still have the person the monarch wants as a companion. No repeat of Edward VIII.